A. The judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A of the above facts charged, even if Defendant B recognized that Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim F, and that Defendant B inflicted an injury on the victim A and E, was erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) on Defendant A is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the possibility that the injury suffered by the victim was incurred in the process of speaking the Defendant and B cannot be ruled out, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In full view of the circumstances admitted by the evidence of the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. 2) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning, based on the victim’s statement and the written diagnosis of injury, the possibility that the injury inflicted on the victim A cannot be ruled out, in light of the victim’s statement and the written statement of diagnosis of injury, and the fact of injury to the victim E cannot be ruled out to have the possibility that the victim suffered the injury in the course of speaking the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to find the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the statement

In full view of the circumstances in the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

B. The Defendant A recognized the facts charged and opposed to the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant’s crime of this case is the victim.